The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encycloped…

Most of the transcriptions of the Second Amendment on the first page of choices for websites from a search were as in the above quotation (with three commas). One had only one comma (after state).https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionThere are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.[25][26]

One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified.[27][28][29][30][31] As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:[32]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A lot of “gun rights enthusiasts” say, “well, the militia in each state IS the people/the general population.” Okay. Either way, regulation is foreseen and encouraged (or taken for granted).

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringe a patent
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

intransitive verb
:encroach —used with on or upon infringe on our rights
— infringer noun

NEW! Time TravelerFirst Known Use: 1513
SEE WORDS FROM THE SAME YEAR >

http://shallnot.orgJames Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution,” said “that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted” by the Constitution, the states not only have a right, but are “duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.”

And in Federalist #46, he advised a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method to stop unwanted or unconstitutional federal acts.

Recently, a specially-convened task force of the Trump administration (current iteration of administration for the federal government) was asking that a lot of personal information on voters in each state be transmitted to a group of people convened by Trump or his supporters (to the task force, that is). The person who made the requests for the information (on behalf of Trump) was (is) also Secretary of State for one of the states. Therefore (having some standards), he (Kris Kobach) refused to comply with the letter he’d officially sent out. The requests had included voting history, party affiliation, social security number…

House Republicans are trying to advance two pieces of gun legislation this year to ease restrictions on guns. The first would make it easier to purchase gun silencers, which advocates say will prevent hearing loss by law-abiding gun owners. There is also a proposal to nationalize concealed-carry laws to let permit holders travel more easily from state to state.

Neither bill has been scheduled for a floor vote, and neither are likely to become law this year. The bills do not have the 60-votes needed to overcome an anticipated Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

I see these (above) efforts as potentially (that is, if accomplished they will be) infringing or encroaching upon states regulating their own gun situations. I think it would be good for states to have consistent laws across each whole state, but not for a national club and trade industry that finances candidates to try and control the whole country boosting their desired sales of products.

Melanson – whose family was rescued by a retired firefighter and whose wife remains in the hospital following a second surgery – said he feared the propaganda on YouTube could impede law enforcement: “It’s hindering the investigation. They are creating false information that the authorities will still have to investigate. It really slows down the process.”

The videos also hurt victims and survivors already struggling to cope with trauma, he added: “It’s not fair to all the family members who have been going through this.”

Not exactly the same thing that your reference was pointing out, but yet another way of adding mud to the waters, where finding actual, substantiated truth doesn’t matter any more.

Last night I heard a quite compelling argument, actually based on research, that mass shootings were not only a result of easy access to guns (which they are) but are also encouraged by the inevitable publicity that would come afterwards. That the shooters are being given a form of celebrity for their crime.
See first story here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-04/the-drum-wednesday-october-4/9016516

Actually… in the larger body of the article, the claim that the shooter wasn’t really the shooter is mentioned. I only quoted the end of the article. It refers back to previous shootings a little bit too (and the buzzword of “false flag” — mostly to emotionally counter any thoughts of gun policy reform).

Gun violence and death used to shock the American conscience to action, until … the NRA [through lobbying and so forth] rendered Congress impotent on the issue and left Americans helpless to address an obvious problem. Duration: 7:48

At the same time, I have read one of the two downloads from your last post. And I agree with it (with the writers or the indicated research) that it doesn’t necessarily follow that because there was a mass murder the mass murderer is crazy. On one level, yes, it makes sense to say that (or think it reflexively). But we could say that about murder in general, and that impulse of thought has been countered by people who don’t want the death penalty abolished. There are definitions that don’t automatically say a murderer is “nuts.” [Also, there are plenty of people with psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies who don’t murder.]